The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER FOUR CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

4.1 The fact that the strong positive responses on design within house-building represents to some extent a self-selecting design-oriented group of private sector developers needs to be emphasised, as does the fact that the research was not designed to capture "typical" views across the whole sector but highlight actual good practice. However it is equally important to stress that the careful structuring of the samples is seen as being representative of the nature of the sector's operations across Scotland.

4.2 This chapter is divided into firstly general conclusions from the questionnaire and semi-structured interviews, secondly a brief overview of the good practice identified in the case studies, thirdly some reflection on the findings in a wider context, and lastly recommendations.

General conclusions from the research findings

4.3 In general there are a number of clear conclusions from this research, and other less clear conclusions which could benefit from further investigation. Conclusions can be organised around the perception of the housing product and embedded processes which produce this and the ways firms organise their development processes and the nature of firms, as follows.

How design affects housing product

4.4 A first clear conclusion concerning the housing product is that the way design quality is perceived by developers is a complex mix of factors which include dominant economic aspects of supply and demand revolving around costs and sales potential - buildability, standardisation, market assessment, customer feedback - within which the visual or spatial quality is a secondary set of values. As such, individuality of design - whether "one-off"/bespoke or adjustments to standard house types - is generally seen as raising costs, providing less certainty in sales and possibly a lower quality of product.

4.5 This view applies to the internal layout, which tends to be the most standardised feature; the external "jackets" applied to these layouts, also often quite highly standardised; site layouts, which tend to be dictated by the aim of maximising the return on the number of units on costly land within the narrow parameters of road regulations; and overall urban design within context, which is perhaps the design feature least considered by developers, partly due to the fragmented form of land delivery and partly due to the general lack of overall site specific design guidance. That said, however, some developers stress the importance of place-making but find this difficult to implement in the development process as noted below.

4.6 Perhaps most obvious in this regard is that private sector housing developers tend to see themselves as offering a manufactured product more than a crafted product, and the economics of some elements of mass production affect their activity. However, what is offered is increasingly not only seen as a manufactured product, but marketed as a "lifestyle" option, and this is most clear in the sales techniques, but affects decision-making within firms in the development process as noted below.

4.7 This supply of partly mass-produced manufactured lifestyle products is however conditioned by the fact that there is excessive demand in relation to supply, and hence the level of market research - while undertaken seriously through in-house assessments and customer feedback - tends to build on existing products and the lifestyle images which can be associated with these (whether "traditional" or "contemporary"), and not necessarily investigate wider varied demand. In other words - perhaps with the caveat of general location vis-à-vis major employment possibilities - what is built will sell.

4.8 In this respect, therefore, any changes in design of the product need to take into account the processes that firms use to assess market demand, and also more general projections of how this is changing / likely to change, or might be encouraged to change. Mass media is a very powerful tool in regard to the latter, but projections of demographic change and changing socio-cultural attitudes to home and even work are potentially needed to impact on the former. These affect the whole market and are arguably unlikely to be undertaken by individual developers.

4.9 A second clear conclusion concerning the housing product is that there is a tendency for this to become more standardised in certain aspects (internal layout and components for instance) but also less standardised concerning site layout and (to a lesser extent) the external "jacket". This can be seen to reflect three main issues: the nature of land release, with brown field land and masterplanned sites requiring more individual treatment; the demands of the planning and other approval systems, with design being seen as a more important consideration; and the changing nature of the construction process, with a shortage of skills and cost benefits from off-site manufacturing of components.

4.10 Arguably what is happening is an increase in the importance of elements of site-specific design (external appearance, site layouts and urban design context), balanced by changes in production techniques, with more off-site manufacturing, and some recognition of changing demand, channelled through marketing. More explicit recognition of these changes could thus be a key to a stronger role of design within the development process (see below).

4.11 A third, perhaps less clear, conclusion concerning the housing product is the extent to which the design of private sector housing is incorporating wider social issues such as accessibility and sustainability. While most developers are aware of sustainability issues and undertake some more sustainable actions in the construction process, the prevailing attitude to sustainability and accessibility issues is that these are driven by government policy and not the market and hence developers will take these on board as they are required to, but not voluntarily. This is partly as there is a perception that these are not customer led, but also as they entail higher up-front costs and hence affect saleability - especially starter homes. There is little evidence of understanding or design based on the concept of whole-life houses, partly due to the nature of the housing market as developers assume households will move when facing different needs.

4.12 Referring to sustainability, some developers pointed out that, while in general they find the changes in regulation a negative factor and in fact they respond to the "level playing field" of regulations for new build, the lack of parallel regulations concerning existing housing stock is putting new build at a disadvantage, apart from the preponderance of existing stock across the nation and hence the need to address these issues more widely.

4.13 That said, some developers are aware that sustainability can be a part of branding and that this is likely to be more important in future, both from market demand and government regulation. However there are issues which go beyond individual developers in terms of developing new processes and product development which can require initiative across the sector.

Design in the development process

4.14 A first clear conclusion concerning design in the development process is that the form of land supply has a major impact on housing design, in various ways. This includes the limiting of time for design between competitive land purchase and starting on site - exacerbated by lengthy planning and related approval processes. It also includes the fragmented nature of much land release and the lack of overall spatial planning for a number of adjacent sites. The price of land itself also forces developers to maximise the number of units built on the site, and hence reduces site layout and urban design options.

4.15 The government focus on brown field development is changing the nature of land availability and the inherent issues in developing this land - decontamination, contextual development, site size - are leading to different balance of land acquisition and design in the earlier stages of the development process, including more "bespoke" and externally provided design inputs and a shift from more standardised in-house led design.

4.16 A second clear conclusion concerning design in the development process relates to the nature of approvals and design guidance. While most developers welcome design guidance and policy statements, the current general nature of such guidance still needs to be interpreted for sites and here the developer either wants clearer guidance or wants to be able to take the initiative and be sure of an informed and timely response. In general developers see planners as having a key role in promoting design quality, however find that planning authorities have difficulty in providing the necessary response due to staff limitations/skills, lack of consistency in application within authorities ( e.g. planners, other regulators and/or councillors) and across authorities, with differing requirements, and that there are problems in the timing of the whole process which leads to minimising design changes which might otherwise be considered, due to the cost implications of lengthy approvals.

4.17 In this context the issues of road design and site layouts and general place-making and urban design are recurrent problems, as are drainage issues. Some developers do take the initiative in urban design, as encouraged by national policy and guidance, however overall there was agreement on the usefulness of urban design frameworks, masterplans and design statements. Other than the possibility of increased staffing and design skills across authorities and better in-house coordination and streamlining of approval processes (which could be differentiated by development size), it is also suggested by developers that independent advice be called on to increase design inputs. A partnership approach to working between developers and regulatory authorities is seen as being potentially beneficial, as the case studies have shown.

4.18 A third, less clear, conclusion concerning design in the development process relates to construction. Here, as noted above, off-site production is increasing, partly due to new product availability and on-site skilled labour shortages, but also related to economies of scale. Potentially more off-site manufacturing could improve sustainability, but this is also related to the standardisation of products. As noted above, there is a tendency to standardise some aspects of the building design process such as internal layout and components, but a tendency for these to be required to fit in different site conditions and with different external "jackets" related to lifestyle marketing and planning / urban design contextual considerations. Developers differed between those which have in-house construction and those without, contracting this out - with the former more open to changes in design in response to customer demand or planning requirements.

4.19 A fourth, arguably less clear, conclusion concerning design in the development process concerns the design skills base. While it is clear that developers rate private sector development experience higher than formal architectural skills vis-à-vis design "flair", mainly due to the implications for the highly prized "buildability", the number of design-related staff is rising, both in-house and bought in from external consultants. The nature of which option is primarily operated (in-house / bought-in) and on what issues (standard house types, bespoke design, etc) however varies considerably and no clear pattern exists, even for larger companies with headquarters outside of Scotland. The fluctuating nature of the market tends to mean that it is more secure to have a certain core capacity, closely involved in implementing company policy, with other design needs being bought in as required. The possible wider use of regionally experienced design consultants or design competitions does not seem to be particularly favoured. What seems to be the case, however, is a relatively limited role of qualified architects as opposed to other design-related skills. This contrasts with the generally strong role of qualified architects in affordable housing design. Some developers acknowledged the influence of affordable housing design as a test bed for the private sector. There was a general agreement from developers of a limited experienced skills base and/or appropriate training, with developers investing in some training and nurturing of experience of their own staff

The nature of firms and design

4.20 A final clear conclusion concerning the nature of firms and design is that there are different types of developers, and the nature of their business affects their approach to design. Developers vary in size and nature of output, nature of business (family-owned through to national public companies), nature (developer and developer/builder), land banking and/or financial resource capacity ( e.g. historic land banking, finance available through parent company), and to some extent, region of operation (especially East/West Coast in the Central Belt).

4.21 In this respect it is important to note that while the largest developers are UK national companies, who tend to operate in the larger market of the Central Belt, there is a significant Scottish regional market share, split between small and medium size companies with the latter producing significantly more housing. As to nature of output, most firms operate across segments of the market, with the majority focusing on mid-market. In general, design was seen as more important for executive housing than starter housing and this was related to the nature of standardisation. While larger developers may be able to undertake more research and development, they are also more likely to be interested in satisfying shareholders, cutting costs, and less prepared to adjust standard designs.

4.22 While the nature of the developer influences approaches to design - such as who takes key decisions affecting design and how these decisions are undertaken - it is also linked to the projected company image, which in turn is linked to the type of the housing on offer, and the market segments within which the company operates. Branding a company image through design was an important response to note, and this may be an increasing trend as it is linked to "lifestyle" images.

Overview of good practice in the case studies

4.23 This section is divided into the three themes which were used to structure the case study reporting: land & masterplanning; design and engaging with the planning system; and one-off / bespoke design and standardisation.

4.24 An interesting conclusion is that the good practice case studies display a variety of key issues, and as such embedding design within the development process and producing quality results is not dependent on any specific approach to these, including: in-house as opposed to bought-in design skills; use of customer feedback and firm branding; leadership in land assembly and masterplanning; and engagement with planners and other regulatory agencies. It is noted that of these key issues the most cited of relevance to the good practice case studies was management of external design consultants and good engagement with planners.

Land & masterplanning

4.25 The packaging and release of land for development often entails close collaboration between different stakeholders: landowners, local authorities and developers all having roles to play, all of whom potentially can take a leading role in relation to design quality.

4.26 A key advantage that assembly of large areas of land for development can offer is certainty to incoming developers through the provision of infrastructure and agreed design guidelines through instruments such as masterplans.

4.27 Conversely such assembly and preparation of land for development entails risks for those stakeholders investing in land reclamation, building of infrastructure and preparation of planning and urban design guidance.

Design and engaging with the planning system

4.28 Other ways in which house-builders have engaged with other actors within, and related to, the planning system include some form of guidance through the use of a masterplan and a planning brief, with a key aspect being the importance of the relationship with the planners including:

• early discussions with planners, potentially influencing the purchase of land;
• negotiation with planners leading to major changes to the initial proposals;
• the use of visualisation tools such as 3D computer modelling helping demonstrate proposals to planners and
• other stakeholders; and how this can influence the choice of external consultants and how the design process develops.

One-off and bespoke design in relation to standardisation

4.29 It needs to be emphasised that the case study demonstration projects in fact usually do not reflect the standard processes in place in the companies involved and in this sense several of these projects can be seen as learning experiences for the house-builders, and as such reflect innovation which can come to influence normal practice.

4.30 In general the assessment of how the design process affects the product in terms of design quality is very much dependent on the perception of design quality, which varies considerably. The processes identified in the case studies may be taken as suggestions of ways forward which may facilitate a good result, but these need to be considered in combination with what is regarded as a good product in the firm's approach to development.

Reflection on the findings in a wider context

4.31 A question of relevance to the wider context of this research is to what extent the Scottish private sector housing development sector differs from that across the UK, and can trends in the wider UK context be seen to be relevant to Scotland, in the light of the research findings? While not forming a specific component of this research project per se, some reflection on such issues has assisted in developing recommendations from the conclusions. To this end this section reviews some recent research which examines relevant issues across the UK, acknowledging that this is certainly not exhaustive as such a review is outside the scope of the research specification.

Comparisons of trends in Scotland and the UK

4.32 Gibb (1999) undertook a study of the trends in Scotland concerning certain key aspects previously identified by UK wide researchers, focusing on the penetration of regional markets by UK-wide volume house-builders, but also on issues of efficiency and change. His findings included that within Scotland there was strong evidence of concentration within the sector, however there were distinct regional differences including the level of market penetration by UK firms, and also Scottish regional specialisation ( e.g. through historic land banking).

4.33 He also concluded that, as previously argued by a wider European study (Barlow & Duncan, 1994), the focus within the sector on development gain from land holdings and cost minimisation would fuel continued boom and slump tendencies and thus he advocated a focus of profit-making away from development gain to the building process, which could benefit from innovation and research & development. This was seen as related to the increasing sub-contracting of specialist tasks and use of standardisation as the basis for scale economies. He recognised, however, that "centralised designs" were subject to widespread criticism, particularly from the professions (which he saw this as marginalising).

Concentration and standardisation across the UK

4.34 The issues of concentration and standardisation in the UK house-building industry as a whole were concurrently studied by Nicol & Hooper (1999), finding that concentration in the UK house-building industry had been accelerating since the 1970s, with a direct impact on increasing standardisation of output to benefit from economies of scale. Interestingly, this research found difficulties in defining what was a "standard house type", as also evidenced in this current research. Nichol & Hooper's research noted an increasing differentiation between specialised developer firms and developer/contracting firms. Another finding of interest to this research is that the process of concentration across the UK had not necessarily reduced the number of standard types, possibly due to acquisition of firms and their portfolios of designs, although even smaller developers had significant portfolios. The researchers reported that house-builders were prepared to permit customer changes internally but seldom externally as this was linked more closely to regulatory approvals. While noting that standard house designs could still be used in award-winning schemes, with this being seen as linked closely to site layout and urban design issues, the research did not explore these in any detail.

Innovation in the house building industry across the UK

4.35 Innovation in the house-building industry has been a focus for several researchers ( e.g. Ball, 1999 and Barlow 1999). Findings of relevance in the former are the reluctance for developers to move from what Ball characterised as "low-cost" strategies with minimal sophistication and forecasting capacities, based on: traditional craft-based and flexible construction techniques; identification of preferred market segments and specialisation within this; and adoption of the best land banking and approval mechanisms for the preferred segment / region of operation. Ball argued that the sector had much to learn from other industries in breaking from this traditional strategic approach to seek greater innovatory gains but acknowledged this would probably require government policy, regulatory change and even subsidisation.

4.36 Barlow (1999) took this argument further, arguing that innovation has tended to be of secondary importance as a competitive strategy for the UK house-building sector, who tend to rely on land acquisition strategies (whether land holdings or timely action vis-à-vis market trends), and as such new private sector housing remains a mass produced product manufactured using craft skills, now suffering from skills shortages. He argued that customer demand in housing seems, however, to be shifting - partly due to demographic trends - but also consumer attitudes in the way space in the home is used. As such, he argued that there exist unrealised housing demands which go beyond that which consumers currently express, and which are thus not captured by current customer feedback.

4.37 In response to this Barlow argues that house-builders need to learn more lessons from manufacturing industries such as "lean and agile production" and "mass customisation", with increased customer inputs. This would entail a different focus in building long term relationships with consumers and deeper understanding of more varied market segments. It would also entail structural changes in the supply system, including off-site production and partnering / partnership sourcing. In support of this argument Barlow cites the realities of brown field development, where strategic land banking and speculative inflationary gains are unlikely to be tenable as strategic profit-maximising options, as well as trends within companies to rationalise portfolios and the increase in frequency of re-design of standard products. To facilitate this process, already in the late 1990s, Barlow saw evidence in a few house-builders of eroding functional barriers between design, production and marketing within their organisation, as well as flattening hierarchical management structures to improve information management and communication.

4.38 In general Barlow, as Ball cited above, advocated a need to move from house design dominated by the prevailing financial cycle, balancing short term survival and longer term land purchase, to one focussed on profit-making through innovative integrated supply permitting response to more differentiated demand, this in itself requiring investigation as well as research and development activity. As with Ball, he advocated support from the government to promote appropriate research and training as a form of "technology foresight" activity for future industry needs. In addition he stressed the need for proactive changes to customer attitudes in terms of aspirations.

Standardisation and innovation in design across the UK

4.39 Hooper & Nicol's initial examination of the impact of increasing volume production on design in speculative house-building across the UK in 1996 led to a later study of the nature of standardisation vis-à-vis buildability and individuality. ⁷ These findings (Hooper and Nichol, 2000) confirmed a higher tendency for volume house-builders to use standard designs and a general rise in the number of standard house types being used. The researchers argued that standard designs represent the solution to the tension between medium-term cost estimating (as construction takes time) as part of the residual land valuation process, and responses to perceived needs of potential customers in a competitive and variable market. This standardisation is typically achieved by small batch production using standard designs.

4.40 Despite trends for increased standardisation, the research found considerable variation within the volume producers in terms of centralisation of decision-making, this to some extent being related to perceived marketing advantages and the nature of in-house design capacity. This latter varied considerably, although in general the design costs were seen to be a small proportion in relation to marketing costs. While all firms wished to reduce their standard design portfolio, the nature of the company structure - and more importantly, demands by local planning authorities - made this impossible. Concerning innovation this was found to be incremental, as also noted by other researchers above, proceeding generally with "prototyping" on real sites on a trial and error basis, i.e. evolutionary as opposed to any radical change. This was seen as deriving as much from the development process as from local conservatism (planners and customers).

Innovation and brown field development

4.41 More recently Adams (2004) has examined the tightening regulatory environment for the private house-building sector across the UK, with particular focus on government promotion of brown field development and how this could impact on competencies of developers, arguing for more innovation in business strategies. The basis for his argument was an analysis of the skills set required for green field and brown field land acquisition, approvals and marketing, however other changing variables were the increasing government promotion of, and consumer demand for, better quality of design of housing and residential environments. Adams picks up on previous arguments by Barlow and others on the tendency for the sector - based on the past experience of green field site development - to rely on land and opportunity based profit-making as opposed to innovation in construction process or product and hence a relatively low value-for-money output, with the supply system highly vulnerable to external factors and thus booms and busts.

4.42 Adams claims this process submerges interests in design and the public realm, whether in urban design context or interfacing with existing communities. However, he argues that this approach is not possible for brown field developments, where close negotiation with planning authorities and communities is likely, land acquisition is likely to be more complicated and shared (and have higher costs) and outside existing land banks, densities of development will be higher and more likely to require bespoke design, and the nature of the product required (by planners and consumers) likely to be more varied.

4.43 As such, the changed regulatory environment, nature of the necessary development process, and form of product for marketing are radically different in brown field development as compared to green field, and Adams argues that a whole new set of competencies are required for firms to adjust to these new realities. While some firms have specialised to lead in this sector, more firms are perceiving the need to gear up to the challenge. A key component of successful brown field development is identified as quality design, which for most volume builders Adams claims would require significant "up-skilling" in design capacities.

Brown field development and design quality

4.44 Tiesdell & Adams (2004) take up this theme, arguing that while new green field developments tended to consist of standard units laid out on sites to satisfy road regulations and of poor design quality, brown field housing design tended to be higher density, well integrated to the local urban context, and have character, identity, visual interest, complexity and variety and as such much better aligned with residential design guidance (as outlined in the Introduction to this report). While acknowledging this as a generalisation, they argued that this is essentially due to the nature of the different development process between the two types of site. The authors base their argument on an analysis of what they term "opportunity space" within the structural constraints of the development processes that requires more design input.

4.45 Tiesdell and Adams pick up on a number of the arguments summarised above concerning the nature of green field site business approaches in the industry and its dominant "producer convenience" as opposed to "customer focus", and hence minimisation of design quality issues (seen as emanating from the weaker demand-side in a supply-led market). They conceptualise the developer's opportunity space as constrained by sites, markets and regulation and within this a designer's opportunity space. If the site and market place more demands on the developer for design, as they argue is the case for brown field sites, then the designers opportunity space vis-à-vis that of the developer expands, and hence there is the possibility for better quality design (but not the certainty as this depends on design skills and experience). This they also argue is true to some extent for green field sites as regulation also increasingly focuses on design quality and narrows the opportunity space for developers. In general, thus, they argue that developers need to develop more customer oriented approaches which require strategic learning and place design more strongly at the heart of their development process.

Recommendations

4.46 The recommendations arising from the report are directed to different sectors involved directly or indirectly in private sector house building activity in Scotland.

Developers

• There is a need to recognise that design quality has become a more important component of the development process, both as far as approvals are concerned, but also in relation to the nature of demand, with social change, and future land availability which is likely to entail more urban brown field developments.
• Design quality is not only about aesthetics. It includes product and component quality, and is the basis for place-making, whole-life housing etc. To address design quality in a comprehensive way entails developing a design ethos for the firm, which is likely to be linked to the firm's brand image as well as the segment of the market and development approach.
• Developers are encouraged to take the lead in defining design quality explicitly in terms of their design ethos and then, subsequently, in terms of design statements for different developments, even proposing design frameworks and masterplans when suitable. It is, however, recognised that not all firms may want, or have the capacity, to drive the site specific design quality agenda, and here early engagement with planners is key.
• Early consideration of the likely planning and other regulatory constraints in any site development is essential, as is a willingness to negotiate early with the relevant entities which provide approvals, and which can include landowners. This is especially the case considering the current dominant residual land cost approach to development, which squeezes design time, as well as lengthy approval processes, after which any re-design issues tend to be considered undesirable.
• Developers recognise that what they provide is a largely craft-based, partially manufactured product, and are increasingly adopting some of the gains in added value in modern manufacturing processes, especially related to off-site component production and marketing. This however needs to be backed up by more customer-focused processes, including deeper market research, especially concerning flexibility in user demand in design of final product. This - as noted above in parallel research - will require a strategic change from relying primarily on development gains largely based on land-related issues to development gains based more on issues related to design, embedding design at the heart of the development process with a subsequent impact on the quality of the housing produced.
• Developers need to strategically engage with design in all aspects of their activity, and not minimise this to certain parts of the development process such as approvals and marketing. It is recognised that house designers need to have a good understanding of the development process, and this tends to be achieved through experience in the sector; however a more design-focussed approach is likely to draw more on qualified architects, whether in-house or external consultants, and this can permit a more flexible approach to bringing together the key aspects of developments. These include density and site layout, within an appropriate urban design context - related to land costs; balance between standardisation of internal spatial layout (engaging with whole-life housing issues), standard off-site manufactured components, and a certain level of standardisation in external features - all related to buildability; and development of market research to identify as yet un-expressed demand and turn this into new products - linked to marketing and branding.

Local authorities and other regulatory bodies

• Perhaps the most important key issue in private sector house building is access to land, and while it is recognised that the government has adopted a policy of promoting brown field development over green field development, an adequate supply of land in both categories to address the rising demand is essential, as the current position of limited supply is pushing up land prices. As land becomes more expensive, this is passed on to the house buyer making starter homes in particular less affordable, squeezes out time for design to reduce time related costs between confirming land purchase and start on site (and hence house sales) and also may squeeze out the smaller developer with limited land banking capacity and access only to direct commercial finance.
• The consistent application of guidance and design standards to development sites is necessary to avoid companies which place an emphasis on design (whatever their size) being disadvantaged vis-à-vis competitors who are more oriented towards maximising profits when such companies are in competition for land where the residual value of the land is the key determinant of which developer will be able successfully bid for a site.
• Planning in particular has a key role to play in placing design at the heart of house building, and this requires adequately staffed and skilled planning departments. Planners need to be prepared to engage with private sector developers early in the process, and be able to respond to design proposals, or guide initial design issues, in collaborative ways, with a more realistic understanding of the economics of development. In this process planners need to be able to apply general guidance on urban and housing design in a clear and consistent manner.
• Local authorities and landowners, as well as developers, could use design competitions more in relation to housing developments. To be effective, such competitions need well developed briefs concerning key planning and buildability issues. Local authorities and other bodies ( e.g. heritage bodies) can also be proactive in creating and widening the impact of awards for better designed housing. The case study reporting has highlighted how these can be a factor in innovation in embedding design more firmly at the heart of house building.
• Councils need to provide adequate number of appropriately skilled planners, upgrading these skills as required in design areas. They also need to invest in plan-led design guidance to avoid excessive individual guidance falling to planners, who may thus display less consistency, and they need to build in more coordination across the various local authority approvals. Councillors inevitably have the final say, but need to be aware of design and economic issues and avoid differential treatment of firms or sites, basing their decisions as much as possible on expert advice. Expert advice can be from in-house planning and architectural design personnel, but can also be external through advisory groups.
• There needs to be close coordination and clear and non-conflictive and unambiguous guidance on issues such as densities, contextual design issues, drainage, building regulations etc. This requires various council departments to liaise, including with other regulatory bodies. In this context, there are specific problems with housing layouts and improved design, including fragmented land availability, inflexible application of road layouts and garden sizes, as well as drainage issues which are flagged up in the research and which need attention. As noted above in the conclusions, this requires a more collaborative approach to housing development through partnership working, as some of the case studies have described.

Other indirectly engaged institutions

• Government agencies have provided policy and guidance in architecture and planning, and need now to support the wider application of this through increased support for design-related training for a wide range of parties including key decision-makers on the application of such policy and guidance in practice (especially planners and Councillors, but also potentially architects, related design staff and house developers). This enhanced training input can be through encouraging 'Continuing Professional Development' type activities on a regional/local authority basis, but also through encouraging deeper perceptions of house design within design training courses, including schools of architecture and the built environment - perhaps through (co-)sponsoring competitions and prizes.
• Government also needs to provide research support for the housing sector in facing challenges such as more sustainable housing, research into more varied demand, and research into strategic trends. Most importantly, such research should be widely disseminated and translated into practical guidance / regulation. In this respect, the new housebuilding sector needs to operate on as level a 'playing field' as possible vis-à-vis wider housing sustainability, accessibility and whole-life housing issues.
• Educational and research institutions, such as universities, have a key role to play in not only undertaking academic research and disciplinary teaching, but in promoting applied research, practical skills training as part of curricula and engaging with professions and practice in mutual knowledge transfer activities in a wider manner. The importance of such activity needs to be recognised through direct government funding support, as well as indirectly through the mechanisms which assess educational and research institutions activity. In respect to the former, the Scottish government needs to create adequate funding streams for both directed research/knowledge transfer (through competitive tenders) and reactive research/knowledge transfer (through open proposal) mechanisms.

General

• A much clearer picture of what private sector housing development entails needs to be transmitted to a wider audience, including the public. Changing wider public attitudes to design is a long term process, and one which requires government support for innovation and 'capturing the imagination' through wider media. A possible exhibition, or even a documentary, based on the realities of private sector house building across Scotland could draw on this research as a first step.

« Previous | Contents | Next »